se

WORLD

Reserves to play PR role

Continued from page 1

The paper outlines a strategy
for the complete militarization of
the Arctic. In addition to the subs,
new Arctic airstrips and bases will
be established and existing ones
modernized. A training base will
go into operation during the 15
year span the paper covers.

The U.S. and other NATO
members are given a free rein to
test equipment and train their
troops. The Pentagon is also per-
mitted . to use Canada as a for-
ward base “‘in times of nuclear
conflict”.

The hefty price tag the paper
brings with it is justified by the
economic benefits. No other

Canadian government has so
boldly promoted defence spend-
ing as a major plank in its eco-
nomic strategy. “‘Defence spend-
ing is of benefit to all sectors of
society”’, it reads, emphasizing
the 294,000 jobs generated by the
$12-billion dished out during
1985-86.

The paper’s economic argu-
ments are littered with the jargon
of the neo-conservative age.
Canadians are assured that de-
fence spending is good for them.
The program will contribute to
the ‘“‘development of new tech-
nical skills’’, the “‘growth of small
business”’ and ‘‘the education and
training of highly skilled work-

”

ers’. “Canadian international
competitiveness’’ will be en-
hanced, international trade will
expand and regional ‘‘economic
disparities’’ will be overcome.

Public Relations Hype

There is a heavy public rela-
tions component to the docu-
ment. It acknowledges that
Canadians find the prospect of
war “‘abhorrent’’. ‘‘Public atti-
tudes toward defence have been
affected by ... some of the un-
pleasant realities of international
security’’, it notes. The report
also concedes that some do ques-
tion whether arms spending is the
best use of social resources.

Peace activists, women, poor
critical of defence paper

Special to the Tribune

TORONTO — _— Repre-
sentatives of the peace, labor,
environmental, anti-poverty and
women’s movements called a
press conference June 6 in Toron-
to to respond to Perrin Beatty’s
White Paper on Defence.

Warning that the proposals
contained in the White Paper will
“draw Canada further into the
United States’ plan for nuclear
war-fighting’”’ David Kraft, co-
ordinator of the Toronto Dis-
armament Network, called for an
open and critical review of Cana-
dian defence policy.

Lashing out at the proposed
purchase of 10 nuclear-powered
submarines at a cost of more than
$7.5-billion, Kraft said the sub-
marines had a purpose far more
sinister than simply asserting Arc-
tic sovereignty, they are the final
touch to drawing Canada into a
continental military policy with
the U.S.

‘‘Star Wars is the roof, the
North Warning system and the
Air Defence system are the walls
and the nuclear submarines are to
be the floor of the U.S. nuclear
war-fighting policy’’, he said.

Anne Swarbick, executive
assistant of the Toronto Labor
Council, asked how Canada can
be taken seriously when it calls

’ for an end to the arms race while

at the same time fueling it by
doubling its military expendi-
tures.

The economic consequences of —

the White Paper are also an issue.
The increases tabled in the de-
fence paper will cost every Cana-
dian one thousand dollars, said
Rick Myers of STOP 103, an
anti-poverty organization. ‘‘How
can single parents and those living
at a minimum wage level be ex-
pected to pay such costs?’” he
asked.

“Budgets are generally bal-
anced On the backs of the people
who can afford them least,”
Myers Said. “‘So far it’s been in
human Services and monies allo-
cated to provinces for provincial
sharing. It’s been at the expense
of science, an area in which
Canada used to excel. Now again,
it seems human services are going
to be cut at the expense of a mili-
tary-industrial complex that may
be taking over Canada.”

Sue Colley, of the National
Committee on the. Status of
Women, voiced concern that the
Mulroney government’s military
spending will put serious road-
blocks in the way of future social
spending in Canada. ~

Pointing to the crisis facing
child care in Canada, Colley que-
ried how the government could
buy nuclear submarines at a time
when so many Canadian children
lack accessible child care.

‘‘With this money the Mul-
roney government could double
the number of day care spaces in
Canada. Half the cost to make it
affordable and carry it out for 10
whole years,’’ Colley said.

‘**Secondly, they could con-:

struct and provide the capital
costs for 20,000 day care centres,
providing one million day care
spaces in Canada and also create
50,000 new jobs.”’

The contravention of Canada’s
nuclear policies and the environ-
mental impact of the nuclear
submarines on the fragile Arctic
eco-system were the focal point
of a presentation by John Willet, a

researcher with Greenpeace.

Canada. Noting that each of the
nuclear reactors on the new sub-
marines will carry, at the very
least, two to three tons of fuel.
This fuel is highly enriched ura-
nium, enriched to a level above
that needed to make nuclear
weapons.

Yiiowkate fy,

4

Ratna inet i,

This ‘‘estrangement’’ between
Canadians and their fighting
forces is attributed to the dwind-
ling Reserve force. Beatty prom-
ised the House he would boost the
Reserves from their present
25,000 to 90,000 by the turn of the
century.

“The government’s decision to
put greater emphasis on the Re-
serves will build a more effective
bridge between the Forces and
society’, Beatty said. In addition
the Rangers — mainly Inuit and
Native civilians who are issued
with an arm band and rifle and
instructed to watch for Soviet ac-
tivity in the North — will be
boosted, better trained and out-
fitted, the report says.

And lest groups such as ‘*‘Kids
for Peace’’ become too influen-
tial, the department promises to
promote and expand training for
the 60,000, 12 - 19-year-olds it has
enrolled in cadet programs.

The department has also estab-
lished a speakers bureau which
lends out senior military com-
manders for lectures at schools or
for conferences or meetings of
‘‘business, community, labor and
other interested groups’’.

Opposition response to the re-
port was guarded. Although both
the Liberals and New Democrats
are opposed to the nuclear sub-
marine fleet, neither party ex-

The militarization of the North

pressed substantial differences
with the paper’s thrust.

In fact, Liberal defence critic
Douglas Frith, began his com-
ments by criticizing the Conser-
vatives for failing to live up to
their 1984 election commitment to
increase defence spending six per
cent annually above the inflation
rate. He took great pains to re-
mind the House that many of the
programs outlined in the report
had been initiated under the for-
mer Liberal government.

New Democratic critic, Derek
Blackburn launched into the ‘*16
years of Liberal neglect’? when
“equipment degenerated (and)
the navy virtually rusted away’’.

While Blackburn reiterated
NDP opposition to membership
in NATO; warned against in-
volvement in Star Wars and cal-
led for an end to U.S. cruise mis-
sile testing, there was a decidely
hawkish tone to his speech which
called for a wholesale revamping
and refitting and beefing up of a
conventional armed forces.

While both parties noted that
threats to Canadian sovereignty
have emanated from U.S., not
Soviet subs, neither challenged —
the main premise of the White
Paper which justifies $200-billion
to protect Canada from a non- —
existent threat from our northern —
neighbor. :

Policies would militarize economy

By WILLIAM KASHTAN

The Perrin Beatty White Paper on de-
fence policy for Canada shows that the
Mulroney government has taken the road

~ of militarization of the economy on a mas-

sive: scale.

The government claims it is a made-in-
Canada defence policy directed to uphold
Canada’s sovereignty.

The White Paper is not calculated to
uphold Canada’s sovereignty. It is put to-
gether as part of the cold war and first
strike military aims of the Reagan adminis-
tration. It is part of a continental policy
laid out by the U.S. administration. It is
part of the military integration of Canada
into the U.S. Star Wars program and the
U.S. strategy of attacking Soviet submar-
ines in their northern home ports.

What is defence about this White Pa-

r?

PM Mulroney promised the U.S.
administration he would stand by its side
and is living up to this promise in spades.
Free trade marks the economic integration
of Canada with the USA. The White Paper
marks the increased military integration of
Canada with the dangerous foreign poli-
cies of the U.S. administration.

This re-orientation of Canada is masked
by the false claim of a Soviet military
threat. Where?

_In the Arctic it is U.S. imperialism
which refuses to recognize Canada’s sov-
ereignty. In Central America it is the U.S.
administration which interferes in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, Nica-
ragua. In the Middle East it is U.S. im-

perialism which uses its military naval
power to intimidate other peoples and
countries.

Canadians should ask themselves: why
now, when the world-wide demand for
arms control grows, when the possibilities
exist for eliminating intermediate and
short range missiles does the Mulroney
government move in an opposite direction
— towards the militarization of the econ-
omy, towards cold war against a non-
existent Soviet threat?

It is time for the Canadian people to tell
the government to stop this nonsense. The

alleged Soviet threat has been used to -

good advantage by U.S. imperialism to
interfere with the independence and sovy-
ereignty of its allies. It is now using this
so-called threat to undertake a military
adventure in the Persian Gulf and is out to
suck its allies, Canada included, into this
military adventure.

The dangerous course taken by the
White Paper is covered up by the claim it
will create jobs and facilitate regional
development. If jobs are the real aim, why
militarize the Canadian economy? Why
build nuclear powered submarines for a
non-existing Soviet military threat? There
are more jobs created in civilian produc-
tion than in military production.

Would it not have been better to under- -

take a program to end poverty and home-
lessness, the crisis in the countryside, the
creation of a child care program? Would it
not be better to build homes, undertake
road construction, public transport, and
education and health care? These meas-
ures would satisfy people’s needs. The

construction of submarines and other mili-
tary equipment only satisfies the profits of
the military industrial complex.

The militarization program will distort
the Canadian economy as it is distorting
the U.S. economy and transforming the
USA from a creditor into a debtor nation
at the same time as it is a factor in the
looming crisis in the capitalist world.

There is no security in militarizing the
economy. No matter what measures the
government may take in pursuit of se-
curity it will continue to remain vulnerable
to nuclear attack and thus ultimately inse-
cure. There is no security in being tied to
U.S. imperialism. The contrary is the
case.

The real threat today is not the Soviet |

Union but the nuclear arms race: It is time
for the government to turn its attention to
this basic fact rather than proffering words
of peace while lining up with U.S. im-
perialism and its dangerous military strat-
egy.

The labor and democratic movement,

- the peace movements throughout the

country, and the parliamentary opposition
have a great responsibility, to unite their
efforts in rejecting the White paper and
demanding the government adopt a gen-
uinely made-in-Canada foreign policy.

The way to start is by pressing for the
U.S. and its NATO allies to agree with the
Soviet Union’s proposals for the elimina-
tion of INF’s and short range missiles;
ending U.S. Cruise missile testing on
Canadian soil, preventing militarization of
the Arctic, and declaring Canada a nuclear
weapons free zone.

Recess

6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 17, 1987